How would you apply this standard to identical twins, where a single fertilised egg splits into two entities? Or chimeric humans?
But we have no way of knowing which sperm will be the lucky one.
However, it certainly is inconsistent to differentiate between implanted and pre-implanted fertilized eggs (or blastocysts). A fertilized cell which fails to implant itself isn’t substantively different from an implanted embryo that is “naturally” aborted.
Two human beings. Not one. Is that a difficult concept?
Do you agree that your definition is not the only objectively correct definition? If so, I think we don’t have much to debate.
It depends. From what point are they two? Are they at any point one? And how about chimeric humans?
Actually what I wrote is that I would not support terminating a temporarily suspended life. You must have read the part about becoming fully anti abortion in some other forum.
Now - you still owe me an answer, don’t you?
Ok, but this is a different definition from the one you gave, which is that a human life is something you must take action to prevent from becoming a human being, other than natural randomness.
You now posit an additional principle: a human life must not consist of two identifiable entities. But that’s turtles all the way down. Why is a sperm and egg inside a uterus considered separate, but DNA and mitochondria inside a cell membrane not?
Of course, I can come with an utterly arbitrary definition of human life. It’s whatever Richard Parker says it is, for example. But the more arbitrary your principles become, the less persuasive they are to others. They also start to look more and more like post hoc principles that are actually in service of some other fundamental goal or principle.
My definition is internally consistent and logical. And can be objectively determined.
I am still to find such logical consistency combined with ability to be objectively determined in other definitions. Your “some sort of human level” vagueness. Or “ability to feel pain” that some people trot up (no idea why - if you numb someone up, it’s ok to kill them?). “Sentience” - try to determine that objectively. “Viability” - let’s determine whether it is ok to kill humans based on whether technology is good enough (and then the abortions should be forbidden after 20 weeks) etc.
Then your “principle” of supporting termination of human life based on lack of brain activity even if there is a high possibility of future brain activity restoration is kinda… broken, isn’t it? Guess you will have to find another excuse to be able to kill the embryos.
Oh, brother. Good luck objectively proving it!!
There is a distinction that can easily be made between “having temporarily turned off human functions” and “having never had human functions”. You, yourself, talk about “potential”. Potential and actual are not the same things. In fact, it is your definition that would logically allow the “temporarily shut off” being to be killed since it will die naturally unless human intervention prevents it from dying.
It is easy to objectively prove that the egg is fertilized. Try objectively proving that the brain is functioning on “some sort of human level”.
I am looking for an excuse to kill embryos about as much as you are looking for an excuse to enslave women. If you want to exchange insults, open a pit thread.
You’re arguing from your own personal dictionary.
The rest of us do not subscribe to your right to redefine words arbitrarily.
Your definition alternates freely between fertilisation and implantation. So much for “internally consistent”.
As for “can be objectively determined” - that is also true for the moment of childbirth. So how much is that worth?
It’s easy to prove that an entity without a brain does not have one functioning at any level at all. That already gets us well past your point of “no abortion”.
My appendix is alive and human, and no one cares if it is killed.
Again, you leap from one word to another without justification. No one else holds a fetus to be an “infant.”
But that’s not your definition. Are you going to change it to “has a brain”? I guess you will have to then define what that means. Objectively.
Yes - moment of childbirth can be objectively determined. I am not aware of anyone supporting the right of abortion all the way up to the moment of childbirth. Are you?
Even if the universe is comlpetely deterministic, you would still be wrong. There’s a difference between what started the process (your answer being the big bang) and when did the mountain building start, which is when I dropped the first grain. The “moutain” is defiined as this collection of all particles seperate from all the not-mountain particles in the universe. When that division takes place with the first grain of sand, that is when the mountain building starts. It’s a silly argument and analogy anyway. It really doesn’t matter when it becomes someone’s definition of a mountain, all that matters is that it will unless someone intervenes.
No. I am just making the point that “can be objectively determined” is not a valuable criterion when deciding.